Former Home Affairs chief Mike Pezzullo tears into Albanese's 'unoriginal' tribute to John Curtin in 'mythical' portrait of legendary PM
He painted Curtin as a canonised Labor hero who locked horns with Churchill over the return of Australian troops from the Middle East, and who maintained a ceaseless vigil as those troops made their way home by sea.
Somehow this was a declaration of independence, when Australia, supposedly for the first time, thought and acted for itself.
Never mind Alfred Deakin building our own navy before World War I, or Billy Hughes pursuing our security interests after that war at the Paris Peace Conference.
The real Curtin was a courageous political leader who, after being appointed Prime Minister in October 1941, did his best to mobilise the Australian people for the coming war in the Pacific.
In December 1941, he famously turned to the US.
He had little choice but to appeal desperately for US military assistance, as Australia could not defend itself, and could not rely upon Britain, which was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany.
Curtin knew that Australia would be a crucial base for future US operations against Imperial Japan.
First, however, Australia would have to be defended.
In early 1942, he and Churchill had a disagreement over the disposition of Australian forces.
Curtin wanted them to return home; Churchill wanted them sent to Burma.
The resultant flurry of cables between the two was a minor dance of allies arguing over war strategy.
Churchill and Roosevelt had far more serious arguments, especially over the invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe.
In 1944, as James Curran showed in Curtin's Empire (2011), after the danger to Australia had passed, Curtin tried to resuscitate the idea of 'imperial defence', whereby Britain and its self-governing British dominions would better coordinate their defence strategies and foreign policies.
Curtin turned back to the British Empire, which is surely an inconvenient blindspot in the mythic origin story of an 'independent' Australian foreign policy.
Forget such myths.
A grittier and unsanctified version of Curtin would serve us better today.
Indeed, that Curtin would be a leader for these dark days.
With a largeness of mind and a strength of character, the Curtin of history grasped the terrible reality that global circumstances did not suit his agenda of socialistic reform.
Instead, he had to focus on questions of war.
After he became Leader of the Opposition in 1935, Curtin recognised that he would have to champion what was, for him and his party, an unnatural cause – namely, how best to independently defend Australia, at a time when the prevailing orthodoxy was to rely on Britain, and its naval base in Singapore.
Had Curtin won the elections of 1937 and 1940, Australia would have been better prepared.
The national panic of 1941-42 might have been avoided.
Australia might have even re-armed in time to be able to deploy a powerful force in its sea-air approaches to confront Imperial Japan's southwards thrust.
Perhaps, Australia might have 'looked to America' sooner - but demanding the final say in its own local defence.
Those who would seek to appropriate Curtin's legacy should not be allowed to admire only what he did as a wartime leader.
To honour him properly, we have to ask what a modern-day Curtin would do in the face of a looming war.
While working tirelessly for peace through diplomacy, Curtin today would be vocal about the threat posed by China.
He would argue for greater defence self-reliance and dramatically increased defence spending.
He would be concerned about the threat of missile and air attack, offensive cyber strikes, raids in remote areas, attacks on shipping, and so on.
He would be deeply engaged with his professional advisers on how best to deal with these military problems.
He would show a deep interest in complex matters of war.
He would recognise that, in a new 'look to America', ANZUS would need to become a warfighting alliance, with a standing headquarters (but this time headed by an Australian).
He would authorise the development of war plans, including jointly with the United States.
He would ask to see those war plans, and to approve them.
He would also give priority to home defence, mobilisation, defence production, and the introduction of national service.
The problem with meeting our heroes is that they always disappoint us.
Meeting the real Curtin – the one who was focused on technical military issues, even if that meant setting aside a socialistic reforming zeal – would disappoint the Prime Minister.
That, however, is the Curtin that we need today.
The Curtin who in the 1930s was concerned that Australia was not doing enough to get ready, and who would today be deeply concerned to see history repeating itself.
Michael Pezzullo was the Home Affairs Secretary from December 2017 until November 2023.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
22 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Polls open in Taiwan's high-stakes recall election
Taiwanese voters turned out at schools, churches and community centres on Saturday to cast their ballot in a high-stakes recall election that could give President Lai Ching-te's party control of the parliament. Supporters of Lai's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are seeking to unseat 31 lawmakers belonging to the main opposition Kuomintang party, who they accuse of being pro-China and a security threat. The KMT, which wants closer ties with Beijing, controls parliament with the help of the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) and has slammed the unprecedented recall effort as a power grab. Polling stations opened around Taiwan at 8:00 am (0000 GMT) with 24 KMT lawmakers facing potential recall. Elections for another seven KMT lawmakers will be held on August 23. Both major parties held rain-soaked rallies in the days leading up to the critical vote, which has dominated Taiwanese politics, newspaper headlines and social media feeds for months. While Lai won the presidential election in 2024, his DPP party lost its majority in parliament. Since then, the KMT and TPP have joined forces to stymie Lai's agenda, and slashed or frozen parts of the government's budget. Contentious opposition bills, including an attempt to expand parliament's powers, sparked brawls in the legislature and massive street protests -- and spurred civic groups to launch the recall campaign. The DPP needs a minimum of 12 KMT lawmakers recalled to gain temporary control of the parliament, with risk analysis firm Eurasia Group giving that outcome "a 60 percent probability". Lai's party would then need to flip six seats in by-elections later this year to cement its dominance in the 113-seat parliament -- which analysts say would be a formidable challenge. Whatever the result of the recall and by-elections, analyst Lev Nachman said political divisions in Taiwan were certain to deepen. "The way that the recalls have played out have been perhaps some of the most divisive language used towards both camps that I think I've ever seen," Nachman, a political scientist and longtime observer of Taiwan, told AFP. - China looms large - In recent months, KMT chairman Eric Chu has compared Lai's government to Hitler's Nazi regime, while Lai has spoken of "removing impurities" to defend Taiwan's sovereignty. Beijing has loomed large over the recall vote, with Taipei warning of "visible evidence" that China was trying to interfere in the process. Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, but Beijing claims the island is part of its territory and has threatened to use force to bring it under its control. For a KMT lawmaker to lose their seat, the number of votes in favour of recalling them must exceed those against and also be more than 25 percent of the total number of registered voters in the electorate. Turnout will be critical and both sides have been lobbying their supporters for weeks to get out to vote before polling stations close.

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Taiwan votes on politicians accused of being close to China
Taiwanese residents are today going to the polls in the island's largest ever recall vote. More than two dozen opposition lawmakers are facing possible removal from parliament, accused of being too close to China and weakening Taiwan's national security.

Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem
London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.